I'm interested!
thanks for proofing me wrong
I absolutely agree with Micah in that a commander is not manditory - so long as the team is winning mindlessly theres no sense in commanding, and if I ever do step up in such occasion it's most often to save the team's multi at the end of the round when the last five guys are about to assault the crushthrough-tower, or when the few survivors are split and the enemy has the ranged and/or mounted advantage - to spare us being picked off one after the other.
Otherwise, a commander can be of great use when one side is simply being hammered senseless - most often due to fighting on terrain that ill suits the team's strengths, charging in all directions when the enemy has the mounted advantage (a class that feeds on loners) and splitting or heading the wrong way on bi-directional maps (in which case the round is most often won by the fastest team).
A commander can be of great use by encouraging people to do that which is counter intuitive : for instance while one's first impulse is most often to HOLD facing overwhelming cavalry, under specific circumstances it can be best to CHARGE and use numbers to one's advantage by first swarming their infantry - while TOGETHER infantry and cavalry are lethal, dissociated one is free to fully focus on the threat at hand.
As for the community's willingness to follow - in my experience those who aren't are the exception, the issue lies in convincing the rest of the necessity - it often takes a colossal loss for them to realise that a plan is in order, and sometimes it's best for a commander to let that happen rather than issue orders followed by noone and suffer an inevitable loss in credibility. Timing is also critical when it comes to elaborating a plan that is followed, even if as simple as charging left or right, I like to use the voice messages "Attack the left / right flank" "hold" and "defend the walls" during the second or two in which players are frozen at spawn, as to influence those who spawn in the front ranks - for THEY are truly the ones followed.
A different chat colour would be very helpful (also for voice commands), not to mention knowing WHO to listen to. I don't believe a majority should be required for the vote to pass, but perhaps one third of the players on a team - while the majority will follow, most won't bother with the Q menu.
What do you think?
Bjorn
Exeptionell summary on how commanding is already practiciced ; tyvm sir
also +1 for the idea on changing voice command color in chat for commander. I will edit the OP accordingly =)
A good question might be: What tools can usefull support ongoing attempts to organize a team.
Question arises:
What style of team organizing is going on? ( reffering Toodles post)
Ad-hoc tactic style - thats the non-verbal or "silent" tactics - there is homogene version like spontanous generated gank squads from certain melee classes or archer groups with the silent agreement over the best place to positioin or the best way to go on a map. Also cross class version like "the protector" Melee (player/group) defending a archer(archer group). On a higher level this results in ad-hoc team tactics like if some players swarm out individually followed by some others that silently agree resulting in a potential flanking maneuver, but often unknown by the others and with no/bad timing. there is much more about that layer and advanced players with certain level of overview of a battle try to use such tendencies for their advantage if they can. this can not be supported directly , only trained and practiced by playing and a bit in clan trainings. However , this style have serveral major risks and flaws with it which render unusable in a greater sense of tactics. Its even more a short term version of tactics, since it tends to create very instable associations . I wont discuss here since its to far off topic But this category has a real intersection with the
Implicit Commanding style.
Agreement style (or "Team agreement")- Ideas and suggestions are given in the team chat/voice command - this happens at start of a round ( after one or more lost rounds) . It also appears in late or end phase of a round attempting to make a team work together to get the upperhead of the situation or to prevent major mistakes. In the middle game when flanking attempts are spotted or suggested (keyword: reactive tactical gameplay ). This style very often lacks the decision for one of the possible tactics.
Battle Commanding - where a guy like Bjorn or Phazh who is known to be a good experiance in commanding is directing a team in order to prevent headless behavior. This style relies on and utilizes advanced features like Flags (!remove the annoying bar!) to mark locations or lead people by carrying the flag.(im talking about the good commanding style , not the COMMANDER CAPS STYLE)
Implicit Commanding style, if a clan/group is exercising teamwork causing others to deal with this situation, this is also a non communicative, forced style which i dislike for some reasons. Those guys are hanging in TS often not noticing the chat or even ignoring it. Small groups making a shield wall on unexpected locations or driving a gank truck without looking at what the own and the opponent team does. Neverheless its working sometimes for some reason, which would be the surprize element or randomness advantage against a unorganized opponent. This style is mostly causing split of a team and tactics, leaving half of the team behind to get flanked/cav raped or letting half of a team die before starting to become active incase of a shieldwall exercise. Last but not least this style often prevents the success of communicative teamwork attempts like commanding or agreement tactics because those players simply not listening or just not following tactics of the rest of the team. Sorry for evaluating but i want to make clear why i wont support this style explicitly.
Combinations of these styles where the Implicit+Commanding style would be mentionable since its potentially very effective due to its already existing group core and communication (TS ) , if successfully comunicated to the team members like "Follow us bat X" and the team reacts accordiingly it can result in a very effective teamplay depending on the tactical abilities and decisions of the initiators . Nevertheless its a forced way to do it and has serveral weak spots. First of all it depends on the uncertain tactical abilities of the core group. It Also relies on the positive reaction of the team, it is basically a "self election" or "self nomination" to commandship which has much potential to result in disagreement and split team; that is incase of multiple groups and differing ideas .if however this group(as in one member) could be nominated for commander it might result in a very strong team.
Regarding Team
Agreement style i would suggest supporting this with better voice chat commands than currently since they are simply to slow , warnings should be indicated as such in chat, aswell as suggestions . Yet its always danger of spam and abuse thus it has to be kept less intrusive.
On supporting
Battle Commanding, the Current proposal of the OP seems to be a good start to me, also removing annoying flag bar when flags are carried. The huge problem to overcome seems to be the propper way to chose a Commander since it appears to rely on a public or automated election which of both methods have their major drawbacks. However having in mind the possible ladder system where Commander promotion by up/down-voting could be added i see possible improvements in that matter. Additionaly subgrouping by assigning subcommanders, up to the point where Commanding in Spec mode would add a new layer of tactical gameplay with players focusing on Commanding in great scale battles ( thinking of 200+ player battles in cRPG or strat, obviously FoW for commander Spec mode has to be implemented , which would be easily possible by preventing specing out of a proximity of the own troops ) might be the times to come.
There is however a great fear that the current fast paced gameflow might drive into static, positional combat where CS-style killing machines with incredibly deadly combat skills and a affinity to large dosed adrenaline rushes might get bored. I want to ensure that this is not gonna happen by only supporting and not adding anything which is not already there. On the other hand there is a good deal of the playership that also would like to see battles becoming more of an epic event with more momentum to it than headless slaughtery. With the rallying of the troops to their location on a hill , the moments when the emeny army appear out of the rain, the sound of their swords chattering on the shields, the air becoming blood and the armees crash into another with the power to make them forget that endless grind because this moment in battle is the one that counts. To achieve this level of gameplay experiance it requires distinguishable game phases and the knowledge of a plan that might succeed or fail. Both of these things will get lost on the road to another highspeed killer game.
Yes, i have to much time to waste
